Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 12-21-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

We have independent evidence, that from shortly after the date of 1 Peter Christians were suffering criminal sanctions for being Christians.

What is the date of 1 Peter, and what independent evidence are you referring to?

Pliny's correspondence with Trajan (c112 CE) takes for granted that it is illegal to be a Christian.

The date of 1 Peter is disputed. IF actually by the Apostle Peter it would date from the 60's CE. Most scholars and most posters on this forum would date it substantially later. It must at the latest be early 2nd century since it is known by Polycarp.

Andrew Criddle

rhutchin · 12-21-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That God is not the author of confusion does not prohibit those who read the Bible being confused. The Bible can be difficult to understand and people who want it to say things that they want to believe can find it confusing when it does not do that.

rhutchin IS confused. He believes in a God that KNEW we would get confused with his holy text, and yet went ahead and published it!
That is confusing, indeed!

Who do you mean by "we"?

Mark 4
11 And [Jesus] said unto [His disciples], Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

rhutchin · 12-21-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Faith undergirds all beliefs, yours as well as mine.

That's bull. I can believe it is raining because I can see rain and feel it and hear it when it happens. Not one bit of faith is necessary.

Things I argue and discuss here are not my "beliefs". They are tentatively held ideas open to revision and discarding.

If I believe something it is because of a life-time of experience that leaves no exceptions to a rule, confirmed by the experiences and tests and projects of many others where the rule is totally relied on to work every time. Gravity, for example.

But even then I don't "believe" in gravity really. If a better explanation was advanced by physicists and found to be a better explanation for my falling ground-ward when I lose my balance then I would be open to going along with it.

But belief in God is very often something regardless of evidence and experience -- and reason. That's where faith kicks in.

Not really. The term, "believe," refers to those things for which a person forms an opinion. You know that it is raining because you can see rain. That is not a belief. If you had said, "I believe that it will rain tomorrow," then you have expressed something you believe.

The things you argue and discuss in this forum are your "beliefs" because they are tentatively held ideas that you hold and which are open to revision and discarding.

rhutchin · 12-21-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. The Bible has caused lots of confusion, even among Christians. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That God is not the author of confusion does not prohibit those who read the Bible being confused.

How is it possible to prohibit confusion?

I don't see that it is so long as people cannot understand what they read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Bible can be difficult to understand and people who want it to say things that they want to believe can find it confusing when it does not do that.

God is the author of confusion since he needlessly inspired many writings that are confusing. For example, during the U.S. Civil War, Jefferson Davis was the President of the Southern Confederacy. He believed that the Bible endorsed his accepted version of slavery. Whether or not the Bible endorses Davis' accepted version of slavery, if what the Bible says about slavery was very clearly written, since Davis was apparently a devout Christian who tried to live according to the teachings in the Bible, he cannot be blamed for misunderstanding the Bible. The blame must go to God, or if the God of the Bible does not exist, which is probable, to the Bible writers.

Just because men use the Bible to support that which they want to believe does not make the Bible confusing. That people seem to be bi-polar is clearly recognized:

Romans 7
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

bacht · 12-21-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

That's bull. I can believe it is raining because I can see rain and feel it and hear it when it happens. Not one bit of faith is necessary.

Things I argue and discuss here are not my "beliefs". They are tentatively held ideas open to revision and discarding.

If I believe something it is because of a life-time of experience that leaves no exceptions to a rule, confirmed by the experiences and tests and projects of many others where the rule is totally relied on to work every time. Gravity, for example.

But even then I don't "believe" in gravity really. If a better explanation was advanced by physicists and found to be a better explanation for my falling ground-ward when I lose my balance then I would be open to going along with it.

But belief in God is very often something regardless of evidence and experience -- and reason. That's where faith kicks in.

Not really. The term, "believe," refers to those things for which a person forms an opinion. You know that it is raining because you can see rain. That is not a belief. If you had said, "I believe that it will rain tomorrow," then you have expressed something you believe.

The things you argue and discuss in this forum are your "beliefs" because they are tentatively held ideas that you hold and which are open to revision and discarding.

I think the problem is in expressing beliefs about non-naturalistic phenomena like miracles or ghosts. In casual conversation the word "belief" gets applied to all sorts of things but in this forum I think there's an important distinction between things that have been or could be proven scientifically and those things which are beyond empirical measurement.

"Believing" in gravity is nonsensical since this is a natural force acting on us whether we're insane, unconscious or dead. If a better scientific explanation for this phenomenon comes along then physicists will adopt it. But saying that God invented gravity is scientifically unprovable, this is what I would call a "faith" statement.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-21-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

God is the author of confusion since he needlessly inspired many writings that are confusing. For example, during the U.S. Civil War, Jefferson Davis was the President of the Southern Confederacy. He believed that the Bible endorsed his accepted version of slavery. Whether or not the Bible endorses Davis' accepted version of slavery, if what the Bible says about slavery was very clearly written, since Davis was apparently a devout Christian who tried to live according to the teachings in the Bible, he cannot be blamed for misunderstanding the Bible. The blame must go to God, or if the God of the Bible does not exist, which is probable, to the Bible writers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Just because men use the Bible to support that which they want to believe does not make the Bible confusing.

Sure it does. If a God inspired the Bible and created humans, and knows the future, he knew in advance that during the U.S. Civil War, some Christians would kill each other because they interpreted what the Bible says about slavery differently. Would you like to claim that God was not able to inspire clearer writings about slavery that would have prevented some hatred and deaths? If a God deliberately inspired writings that he knew would cause some confusion, and refused to inspire writings that would have prevented some confusion, he definitely is the author of confusion.

Do you intend to reply to my post #10 in a thread in a thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=280408? I have debated you for years. I have learned that you have a habit of conveniently vacating threads when you get into trouble. Perhaps you conveniently vacated that thread too.

rhutchin · 12-21-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

God is the author of confusion since he needlessly inspired many writings that are confusing. For example, during the U.S. Civil War, Jefferson Davis was the President of the Southern Confederacy. He believed that the Bible endorsed his accepted version of slavery. Whether or not the Bible endorses Davis' accepted version of slavery, if what the Bible says about slavery was very clearly written, since Davis was apparently a devout Christian who tried to live according to the teachings in the Bible, he cannot be blamed for misunderstanding the Bible. The blame must go to God, or if the God of the Bible does not exist, which is probable, to the Bible writers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Just because men use the Bible to support that which they want to believe does not make the Bible confusing.

Sure it does. If a God inspired the Bible and created humans, and knows the future, he knew in advance that during the U.S. Civil War, some Christians would kill each other because they interpreted what the Bible says about slavery differently.

Which means nothing. People claim Biblical support for pretty much anything they want. It does not mean that the Bible is confusing but only that people try to use the Bible for their own purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Would you like to claim that God was not able to inspire clearer writings about slavery that would have prevented some hatred and deaths?

The Bible was not the basis for the Civil War. No matter how clear you might make the Bible, those forces which led to the Civil War would have prevailed and the war would still have been fought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a God deliberately inspired writings that he knew would cause some confusion, and refused to inspire writings that would have prevented some confusion, he definitely is the author of confusion.

You offer no proof that the Bible has caused confusion that will lead to anything other than the judgment of evil men and consignment to hell.

neilgodfrey · 12-21-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

That's bull. I can believe it is raining because I can see rain and feel it and hear it when it happens. Not one bit of faith is necessary.

Things I argue and discuss here are not my "beliefs". They are tentatively held ideas open to revision and discarding.

If I believe something it is because of a life-time of experience that leaves no exceptions to a rule, confirmed by the experiences and tests and projects of many others where the rule is totally relied on to work every time. Gravity, for example.

But even then I don't "believe" in gravity really. If a better explanation was advanced by physicists and found to be a better explanation for my falling ground-ward when I lose my balance then I would be open to going along with it.

But belief in God is very often something regardless of evidence and experience -- and reason. That's where faith kicks in.

Not really. The term, "believe," refers to those things for which a person forms an opinion. You know that it is raining because you can see rain. That is not a belief. If you had said, "I believe that it will rain tomorrow," then you have expressed something you believe.

The things you argue and discuss in this forum are your "beliefs" because they are tentatively held ideas that you hold and which are open to revision and discarding.

So a belief is not a belief if it is based on evidence and reason, but only on faith? Is that what you are saying?

I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins last night in which he commented that belief without evidence is not worthy of being called a belief. I heartily agree.

If you want to debate issues for which there is no evidence or supporting reasons, but only "faith" or "belief without evidence" then we are wasting our time. See Tennis without a net where I've pointed out the nonsense of this exercise.

neilgodfrey · 12-21-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

In the very same chapter, the author of 1 Peter says Jesus was insulted and suffered.

By the same people who the author has just declared punish those who do wrong?

Surely not. Not even a Christian would be so dumb as to claim that governors punish those who do wrong, and then immediately claim that governors punished Jesus.

The implication of this verse is supported by 3:13-14

Quote:

13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, . . . .

This does not sound like something written in the context of state persecution. And suffering for goodness' sake is the exception, not the rule.

N

rhutchin · 12-21-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

In the very same chapter, the author of 1 Peter says Jesus was insulted and suffered.

By the same people who the author has just declared punish those who do wrong?

Surely not. Not even a Christian would be so dumb as to claim that governors punish those who do wrong, and then immediately claim that governors punished Jesus.

The implication of this verse is supported by 3:13-14

Quote:

13Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, . . . .

This does not sound like something written in the context of state persecution. And suffering for goodness' sake is the exception, not the rule.

Good example, as Christ was not made to suffer for the good that He did with all His healing, but for righteousness and His demand that God's law be obeyed and not circumvented as the Jews were prone to do.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.